Thanks Dan!
I'm just catching up again. I am planning to scan through all the
commits and see if anything catches my eye. I also saw an issue
reported on the users list that I'll drop into JIRA about the new code
working with 2.0.6 - which versions of Maven have you been testing
with? (I've tended to test with 2.0.4 and 2.0.6, but now 2.0.7 and
2.0.8 made sometimes funky changes that are worth running the
integration tests with).
WDYT about continuing with the 2.3.1 release immediately, and giving
2.4 a short time more to simmer? If for any reason 2.4 does break
certain builds, there is still a better-than-2.3 fallback. You can
also use the release ann. to re-encourage testing of 2.4.
And again, thanks - the quantity of work you did here was just
awesome :)
- Brett
On 11/12/2007, at 10:25 AM, Dan Fabulich wrote:
Surefire trunk currently depends on a couple of SNAPSHOT versions
that we expect to be released in the next couple of days, but other
than that, as far as I know, there's nothing else standing in the
way of a Surefire 2.4 release. It includes more than 50 bug fixes.
With that said, the more testing we get for Surefire 2.4 the better,
because (as I understand it) people are going to be auto-upgraded to
Surefire 2.4 when it gets released; when Surefire 2.3 came out, it
wasn't uncommon to hear people complaining that their tests used to
work earlier in the week, but post-2.3 no longer work.
The easiest way you can help us test Surefire is to pull down
surefire trunk and do "mvn clean install"; that will run all of the
Surefire integration tests. If any of those fail, please file a bug
with a stacktrace (and the log.txt from your surefire-integration-
tests/target directory, if applicable).
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/maven/surefire/trunk
The second easiest way you can help test Surefire 2.4 is to try the
latest SNAPSHOT out in various projects you support. If you find
that Surefire 2.4-SNAPSHOT breaks anything, file bugs and we'll try
to address them. (Reduced test cases in the form of minimal Maven
projects that reproduce the problem would be greatly appreciated.)
-Dan
